Does the first proviso to Rule 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules survive where the Supreme Court has directed seniority be fixed on selection marks?
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice N.Senthilkumar
Tamil Nadu Special Rules for Police Subordinate Service — First proviso to Rule 25(a) — Constitution of India — Article 142 — Seniority of directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Police — Selection marks versus training marks — Binding effect of Supreme Court directions — Tamil Nadu Special Rules for Police Subordinate Service, First proviso to Rule 25(a) — Effect of Supreme Court directions on rule providing for training marks — Held: The first proviso to Rule 25(a), which contemplated fixation of seniority of directly recruited Sub Inspectors on the basis of marks obtained in the final training examination, loses its relevance once the Supreme Court has directed that seniority be fixed solely on marks obtained in the selection process; the Government must re-frame Rule 25 to conform to that dictum. (¶10) Selection process versus police training — Distinction between selection marks and training marks for seniority — Held further: Selection and training are two distinct stages — appointment orders are issued on the basis of the merit rank in the select list published by the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, and training marks obtained thereafter during the probation period are relevant only to confirmation of service, not to fixation of seniority. (¶9, 10) Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Binding nature of Supreme Court directions as law of the land — Held further: A direction issued by the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction, once the review and clarification applications against it stand dismissed, becomes the law of the land under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and must be followed by the authorities concerned notwithstanding the absence of a direct challenge to the unamended proviso. (¶10) Intra-court appeal — Maintainability — Scope of writ order under review — Held further: Where the review order limits itself to directing preparation of a combined seniority list for a specific recruitment batch without disturbing the core direction to fix seniority on selection marks, no infirmity arises in the writ order impugned; the Writ Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (¶11)
Does the first proviso to Rule 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules survive where the Supreme Court has directed seniority be fixed on selection marks?
No — the first proviso to Rule 25(a), which contemplated fixation of seniority on training examination marks, lost its relevance once the Supreme Court's directions in Ranjith Singh's case required seniority to be fixed solely on marks obtained in the selection process; it is for the Government to re-frame Rule 25 accordingly.
For fixing seniority of directly recruited Sub Inspectors, are selection marks or subsequent training marks to be considered?
Selection marks alone are to be taken into consideration, since appointment orders are issued on the basis of the merit rank select list published by the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board before training even commences; training marks obtained during the probation period are relevant only to confirmation of service.
Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, do Supreme Court directions in a service matter bind authorities even without a direct challenge to the unamended rule?
Yes — once review and clarification petitions against the Supreme Court's directions stand dismissed, the judgment becomes the law of the land under Article 142 and must be followed by the authorities concerned, and absence of a challenge to the first proviso does not permit its continued application in violation of that judgment.
What did the Madras High Court finally decide on the seniority dispute among Sub Inspectors of Police?
The Court found no infirmity in the writ order implementing the Supreme Court's directions in Ranjith Singh's case and dismissed the Writ Appeal, with no order as to costs, leaving the recasting of seniority on selection marks to stand.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the writ order dated 20.11.2025 passed in a batch of writ petitions.
Dispute relating to seniority amongst the directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Police has been raised in the present lis. The learned single judge disposed of the batch of writ petitions, following the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.Ranjith Singh and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the said judgment of the Apex Court read as under:
“27. In the present case, the direct recruitment has been done to 80% of the vacancies through candidates from open market and 20% of the vacancies under the direct requirement quota from in-service candidates and pre~amended Rule 25 provides for fixation of seniority with reference to the rank assigned by the appointing authority in the select list meaning thereby only on the basis of marks obtained by each and every individual candidate. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that all seniority list(s) right from 1995 deserve to be re-casted by assigning proper seniority to the candidates who have been appointed from the open market as well as from in-service candidates solely on the basis of ranks assigned to the selected candidates by the appointing authority on the basis of marks obtained by them in the examination on the basis of which they have been selected and appointed to the post of Sub~Inspector of Police. There is no other process which can be followed in the present case. 28. Resultantly, the GO dated 21.11.2017 which grants seniority to the departmental candidates over and above the candidates who have been recruited from open market is hereby quashed and amendment to Rule 25 sub rule (a) also is hereby struck down being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, meaning thereby, the Respondents shall issue a fresh gradation list solely on the basis of marks obtained by candidates in the examination on the basis of which they have been recruited to the services. The Appeals stand disposed of with the following directions: a) The respondents shall recast all gradation list issued from time to time in respect of direct recruitment which includes 20% in~service candidates recruited directly to the post of Sub~Inspector of Police by granting seniority on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination/selection process. The exercise of recasting and issuance of revised gradation list be positively concluded within a period of 60 days from today. b) The respondent State shall not revert any officer who has been given further promotion on the basis of the seniority list already issued by the Department from 1995; however, the respondent State shall not issue any promotion order in respect of departmental candidates till the revised seniority list is issued as aforesaid. c) That, after issuance of revised seniority list, the State Government shall consider the cases of all departmental candidates for promotion to the next higher post keeping in view the promotions granted to the juniors (based upon the revised seniority list) and the exercise of granting promotions be concluded in respect of the direct recruitees (80%) quota within a period of two months from the date of issuance of revised seniority list. d) The direct recruits, in case they are found fit for promotion to the next higher post will be entitled for notional promotion, fixation of seniority and all other consequential benefits except back wages on grant of promotion to the next higher post. e) The State Government shall hereinafter conduct one common examination for 100% direct recruitment for appointment to the post of Sub~Inspector of Police which includes 80% from open market and 20% from in~service candidates and their seniority shall be assigned based upon the marks obtained by individual candidates/rank assigned by appointing authority in the list of selected candidates. 29. With the aforesaid, the appeals stand disposed of. No orders as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
The review applications filed before the learned single Judge in R.A.No. 17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026 were also disposed of on 13.03.2026 on the following terms:
“16. In view of the above discussions, the direction issued by this Court by an order dated 20.11.2025, in the paragraph No.9 sub clause (iii) alone is reviewed and the following direction is issued in lieu of the same:- (iii) the Review Applicants are directed to prepare a combined seniority list for the candidates who were recruited to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1997-1998 considering them as a single batch irrespective of the fact that they were sent for training as two different batches in the year 1999 and 2000. 17. Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.2025, passed by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.28009 of 2024 etc., is reviewed and all the Review Applications (W) are disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.”
The limited scope of the order passed in the review applications is that in the common writ petition order, the learned single Judge in paragraph No.9(iii), directed respondents[^1] and 2 in the writ petitions to treat the direct recruits for the year 1997 - 1998 as two batches viz., first batch of the year 1999 and second batch of the year 2000. However, in the review order, the said portion alone was reviewed by stating that the Review Applicants/Government are directed to prepare a combined seniority list for the candidates who were recruited to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1997 - 1998 considering them as a single batch, irrespective of the fact that they were sent for training as two different batches in the year 1999 and 2000. This is all about the facts relating to the batch of Sub Inspectors directly recruited in the year 1997–1998.
The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Raghavachari would submit that the rulings in Ranjith Singh’s case is to be interpreted in the context of Rule 25 (a) first proviso, wherein it is contemplated that in the case of Sub Inspectors of Police (directly recruited) (Category 2 of Class 1) the seniority shall be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the final examination in the Police Training College, Vellore. Relying on the said rule, he would submit that Ranjith Singh’s case states that the final selection marks are to be considered for fixation of seniority that includes training marks. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is perverse and is liable to be set aside.
The learned Additional Advocate General Mr.T.Gowthaman would oppose by stating that the first proviso to Rule 25 (a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service lost its relevance in view of the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ranjith Singh’s case, cited supra. The review petition filed by the State was dismissed by the Apex Court. The clarification petitions filed by the directly recruited Sub Inspectors were also rejected by the Apex Court. Thus the Department has decided to implement the directions issued in Ranjith Singh’s case. Accordingly, the marks secured by the Sub Inspectors in the selection process alone will be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of seniority.
Mr.MA.Gouthaman, learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that the Writ Appeal is not maintainable, since the review applications filed by the appellants were dismissed by the learned single Judge. Thus the Writ Appeals are to be rejected on that ground.
This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, made the following observations in the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Interlocutory Applications:
“13. The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather6. A disturbing trend has emerged in this court of repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous Applications, being filed after a final judgment has been pronounced. Such a practice has no legal foundation and 7 must be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation to a gambit. Miscellaneous Applications are becoming a preferred course to those with resources to pursue strategies to avoid compliance with judicial decisions. A judicial pronouncement cannot be subject to modification once the judgment has been pronounced, by filing a miscellaneous application. Filing of a miscellaneous application seeking modification/clarification of a judgment is not envisaged in law. Further, it is a settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly [aQuando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquuma]. 14. Further, there is another legal principle which is applicable in the present case. It is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Hence, when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden8. This Court too, has adopted this maxim. This rule provides that an expressly laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it in any other way.” Accordingly, the interlocutory applications and contempt petitions stood disposed of.
It is not in dispute between the parties that on completion of selection process based on the marks, the rank list was published by the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. The said marks alone are directed to be taken into consideration for fixation of seniority by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ranjith Singh’s case. The relevance of such directions is that soon after the process of selection is concluded and the select list is published by the USRB appointment orders are issued to the selected candidates, based on the merit rank selection list. Only after the issuance of appointment orders, the directly recruited Sub Inspectors are sent for police training. Therefore, marks awarded in selection, and training marks are different. Selection marks are taken into consideration for appointing the candidates and appointment orders are issued on that basis. Thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the selection marks alone are to be taken into consideration for fixation of seniority.
After issuance of appointment order, the appointed candidates are sent for police training. Training period is probation period and on successful completion of probation period the services are confirmed. Unsatisfactory performance during the probation period may result in terminating the services. Therefore, selection and training are two different aspects. On completion of selection, the selected candidates are appointed. The marks awarded during the probation period will be taken into consideration for issuance of confirmation/regularisation of services, but it is in no way connected with the marks obtained by the respective candidates during the selection process conducted by USRB. Challenge not made against the First Proviso to Rule 25(a) of Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules is not a ground to violate the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Clarification sought for by Government in this regard was dismissed by the Apex Court. Therefore, it is for the Government to re-frame and amend Rule 25 as per the dictum laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjith Singh’s case (cited supra). In view of the above factual position and based on the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjith Singh’s case, the proviso clause relied on by the appellants lost its relevance and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India becomes the law of the land under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and is to be followed by the authorities concerned.
In view of the above position, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the writ order, impugned in the present intra Court Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC when limitation is a mixed question?
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14807 OF 2024 · Supreme Court of India
Must stray dogs removed from schools and hospitals be released back to the same location?
2025 INSC 1357 · Supreme Court of India
Are the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 binding on a State Government issuing an aggregator licence?
2023 INSC 102 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy